0 reactions
Crime and Punishment is so sloppily written!
I finally read Crime and Punishment (revised Garnett translation). I am familiar with the story, mainly by watching movies. It must be one of the most influential books on cinema, especially film noir. Bresson's Pickpocket is a fairly close adaptation, and that was enormously influential for Paul Schrader, who wrote Taxi Driver. Woody Allen is obsessed with the story (see Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point).
I think the virtue of the novel is its depiction of extreme mental states: unrelenting poverty, insanity, alcoholism, murder, suicide, the irrational power of faith. I especially like how Raskolnikov switches between extreme arrogance and disdain for mankind to extreme generosity at the drop of a hat: giving away all his money, proposing marriage to his landlady's sickly daughter. This switching back and forth between extreme opposites feels very compelling, and reminds me of, for example Holden Caulfield's alternating self-regard and self-hatred.
However, the book itself is just so sloppily constructed. Up until the murder it's fairly compelling. We have Raskolnikov, isolated, his mind turning in on itself, feeling as though the world is sending him signs. But after the murder, the book consists of an endless series of brain-dump conversations. This is the most isolated guy, but all of a sudden he has one guest leaving his apartment as another guest arrives, allowing the endless conversations to continue. The worst one I remember is him coming home and finding Porfiry in his room. Porfiry then begins speaking for *two pages straight*. Good god. I think a better writer would have his character say far fewer words, and psychologize them in his narration. This is what Tolstoy would do, for example. But Dostoyevsky has his characters *psychologize themselves out loud*. It's not that I object to the book's psychological insight, it's that the method of conveying the insight, the writing, is so unbelievably sloppy. The book is absolutely rife with absurd coincidences, as if Dostoyevsky couldn't be bothered to spend a few minutes thinking about a plot that would bring these characters together in a reasonable way.
Upon finishing, it struck me that one reason the book may be so influential is that people read it, are deeply impressed by its insight, but think "I could convey my insights far better than Dostoyevsky."
Knut Hamsun's Hunger is clearly inspired by Crime and Punishment, but completely avoids its sloppy excesses. My favorite contemporary, Dostoyevskian writer is the Norwegian Karin Fossum. She writes about insanity, murder, isolation, with simple, clear, quiet, language. Her books penetrate without seeming to try. I think she's generally marketed as a genre writer, which is unfortunate.
#entertainment
source
I finally read Crime and Punishment (revised Garnett translation). I am familiar with the story, mainly by watching movies. It must be one of the most influential books on cinema, especially film noir. Bresson's Pickpocket is a fairly close adaptation, and that was enormously influential for Paul Schrader, who wrote Taxi Driver. Woody Allen is obsessed with the story (see Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point).
I think the virtue of the novel is its depiction of extreme mental states: unrelenting poverty, insanity, alcoholism, murder, suicide, the irrational power of faith. I especially like how Raskolnikov switches between extreme arrogance and disdain for mankind to extreme generosity at the drop of a hat: giving away all his money, proposing marriage to his landlady's sickly daughter. This switching back and forth between extreme opposites feels very compelling, and reminds me of, for example Holden Caulfield's alternating self-regard and self-hatred.
However, the book itself is just so sloppily constructed. Up until the murder it's fairly compelling. We have Raskolnikov, isolated, his mind turning in on itself, feeling as though the world is sending him signs. But after the murder, the book consists of an endless series of brain-dump conversations. This is the most isolated guy, but all of a sudden he has one guest leaving his apartment as another guest arrives, allowing the endless conversations to continue. The worst one I remember is him coming home and finding Porfiry in his room. Porfiry then begins speaking for *two pages straight*. Good god. I think a better writer would have his character say far fewer words, and psychologize them in his narration. This is what Tolstoy would do, for example. But Dostoyevsky has his characters *psychologize themselves out loud*. It's not that I object to the book's psychological insight, it's that the method of conveying the insight, the writing, is so unbelievably sloppy. The book is absolutely rife with absurd coincidences, as if Dostoyevsky couldn't be bothered to spend a few minutes thinking about a plot that would bring these characters together in a reasonable way.
Upon finishing, it struck me that one reason the book may be so influential is that people read it, are deeply impressed by its insight, but think "I could convey my insights far better than Dostoyevsky."
Knut Hamsun's Hunger is clearly inspired by Crime and Punishment, but completely avoids its sloppy excesses. My favorite contemporary, Dostoyevskian writer is the Norwegian Karin Fossum. She writes about insanity, murder, isolation, with simple, clear, quiet, language. Her books penetrate without seeming to try. I think she's generally marketed as a genre writer, which is unfortunate.
#entertainment
source
| 5,000 mlx | |
| 5 | |
| 0 |